SoL Concerts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iamme said:
Because concerts cost the club more to put on than the money they make.
End of thread.
Pure loss making.
Click to expand...
Doubt it.

The promoters will have a fee agreed for the venue. How successful the concerts are after that won't matter a great deal to the club, though obviously the more successful they are the more food & beverage sales they'll make.

The promoter will carry the risk for the ticket sales, and they and the band will walk off with whatever they make there.

There'll be little cuts here and there for merchandise etc, and the club will probably get a small slice of the gate (hospitality tickets etc) but the main bulk of revenue will be the venue and wet sales, which would be non-existent without the event in the first place. How much time and money the club spend brokering a deal with the promoters is anyone's guess, but I'd be amazed if it's at a loss - especially since we've "cut the fat" as it were.
 


chriswallace85 said:
Doubt it.

The promoters will have a fee agreed for the venue. How successful the concerts are after that won't matter a great deal to the club, though obviously the more successful they are the more food & beverage sales they'll make.

The promoter will carry the risk for the ticket sales, and they and the band will walk off with whatever they make there.

There'll be little cuts here and there for merchandise etc, and the club will probably get a small slice of the gate (hospitality tickets etc) but the main bulk of revenue will be the venue and wet sales, which would be non-existent without the event in the first place. How much time and money the club spend brokering a deal with the promoters is anyone's guess, but I'd be amazed if it's at a loss - especially since we've "cut the fat" as it were.
Click to expand...

Our previous lot were making a loss on every single concert held, but they were spending a grand a week (or month can't remember which) on f***ing plant pots so hardly surprising they couldn't take a profit from thousands turning up to the stadium to watch a band.
 
Roker Mackem said:
:lol: Im sure he's not really shite but im just fitting in with how this thread is going. Not my thing though.


:lol:
Click to expand...

I think he's boring as fuck but loads of my mates love him. I've tried watching his gigs in TV but spent most of it looking at my phone before stopping it part way through
 
Smiler said:
Our previous lot were making a loss on every single concert held, but they were spending a grand a week (or month can't remember which) on f***ing plant pots so hardly surprising they couldn't take a profit from thousands turning up to the stadium to watch a band.
Click to expand...
Who's told you that?
 
Smiler said:
I think he's boring as fuck but loads of my mates love him. I've tried watching his gigs in TV but spent most of it looking at my phone before stopping it part way through
Click to expand...

Like anything isn't it, if you don't like the songs then watching him perform them on tv isn't going to appeal massively.
 
Arfa Sleep said:
Like anything isn't it, if you don't like the songs then watching him perform them on tv isn't going to appeal massively.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I've tried to like him based on loads of my friends loving his music but just can't
chriswallace85 said:
Who's told you that?
Click to expand...

Vaguely remember Gary the Hair leaving and the concerts with him as they were costing us money. Pretty sure it was mentioned at one of the clubs talk-ins back then although my memory is bollocks most of the time
 
Last edited:
Smiler said:
Indeed, I've tried to like him based on loads of my friends loving his music but just can't


Vaguely remember Gary the Hair leaving and the concerts with him as they were costing us money. Pretty sure it was mentioned at one of the clubs talk-ins back then although my memory is bollocks most of the time
Click to expand...

Nah rings true this pretty sure only SAFC could lose money having the stadium full of people paying £50+ ticket and £5+ for a pint carling
 
Smiler said:
Very well might have been, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest the last lot couldn't make a profit from them when they were spending thousands on f***ing plant pots
Click to expand...
I think you need to take that with a pinch of salt as well.


As for the concerts - the only official line on them if you can call them that is that they didn't produce significant profits for the club - but that's certainly not to say they were done at a loss (is there owt in the financials @Grumpy Old Man??).

I remember a Tory councillor having a twist that the council put a few £100k in to support them, but the boost to the city's economy far outweighed that.

We will have lost money when AC/DC didn't sign - how significant an amount that was I don't know but we obviously had people working on that as well as other concerts.

Bain just didn't want them. Moyes didn't want them.
 
Smiler said:
Indeed, I've tried to like him based on loads of my friends loving his music but just can't


Vaguely remember Gary the Hair leaving and the concerts with him as they were costing us money. Pretty sure it was mentioned at one of the clubs talk-ins back then although my memory is bollocks most of the time
Click to expand...

It was Gary the Hair who caused the losses - before he came in we hired the stadium out and got a fee and so many tickets. He came in and tried to run his own concert company for within by employing loads of people. At one point we had more admin staff than Man Utd. With the overheads being so high and him not being able to negotiate fees we started to make a loss and only grants for the council meant we made any profit. Once the council bailed that was it. Gary Hair then decamped to Wembley to do the same but was quickly found out. If we went back to hiring out the stadium or a less expensive model - If Durham Cricket Club can make a profit on say Simple Minds or Hardwick can run 2 day events - why can't we.
 
chriswallace85 said:
I think you need to take that with a pinch of salt as well.


As for the concerts - the only official line on them if you can call them that is that they didn't produce significant profits for the club - but that's certainly not to say they were done at a loss (is there owt in the financials @Grumpy Old Man??).

I remember a Tory councillor having a twist that the council put a few £100k in to support them, but the boost to the city's economy far outweighed that.

We will have lost money when AC/DC didn't sign - how significant an amount that was I don't know but we obviously had people working on that as well as other concerts.

Bain just didn't want them. Moyes didn't want them.
Click to expand...

As @Parkmaverick says above, the company set up by Gary the Hair to do the concerts and corporate events side (1879 Events Management) incurred significant losses from its inception. With hindsight, it looks like nothing more than empire building by an overambitious manager. Once he left, and the decision was made not to attract further concerts, that side of things was quietly brought back in house, and 1879 is no longer trading.
 
I really have no idea how we lost money, when we were getting all the food and drink revenue and the rent for the stadium someone must be doing something badly wrong to actually lose on the deal.

The only concerts that sold badly where RHCP (was a stupid booking) , Bon Jovi and Pink. All the others were pretty much sell outs so would be interesting to see what actually went on.
 
Didn’t we incur costs for the pitch which wasn’t factored in to our “rental” agreements.

So any money made was lost on pitch replacement / upkeep.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
As @Parkmaverick says above, the company set up by Gary the Hair to do the concerts and corporate events side (1879 Events Management) incurred significant losses from its inception. With hindsight, it looks like nothing more than empire building by an overambitious manager. Once he left, and the decision was made not to attract further concerts, that side of things was quietly brought back in house, and 1879 is no longer trading.
Click to expand...
Interesting. The concerts themselves certainly shouldn't have incurred losses. It's just the bluff around it.
 
There are two ways of organising an event if you're a venue holder. You can either hire out the venue, and let the promoter take care of anything else, or else you can promote the concert yourself, and agree a set fee with the perfomers (either a fixed fee, or a percentage of gross ticket takings). As I understand it, we moved from the former to the latter once Gary the Hair arrived.

The former way is inherently risk free, providing you have a shrewd handle on your costs, and can keep your head in negotiating the rental (performers will, not unnaturally, want as low a hire charge as possible), and make sure you have little lucrative addons like commission on any tickets you sell on the performer's behalf. The second is far riskier. as it's both inherently more expensive and it means that you, as promoter, take on all the overhead and risk arising from poor ticket sales or bad weather. The upside is that there's a higher potential profit if you get it right. Gary the Hair didn't.
 
We all have a list of who we’d like to go and see at the SoL but I’d rather anyone who played it would result in a serious boosting of the club coffers regardless.

Couldn’t give a flying fuck if it’s Gerry Cinnamon, Bruce Springsteen or Stormzy!? And all would sell the SoL out. I’d be there for only one of them however, that’s the thing with free choice!

Although Green Day would be mint.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
There are two ways of organising an event if you're a venue holder. You can either hire out the venue, and let the promoter take care of anything else, or else you can promote the concert yourself, and agree a set fee with the perfomers (either a fixed fee, or a percentage of gross ticket takings). As I understand it, we moved from the former to the latter once Gary the Hair arrived.

The former way is inherently risk free, providing you have a shrewd handle on your costs, and can keep your head in negotiating the rental (performers will, not unnaturally, want as low a hire charge as possible), and make sure you have little lucrative addons like commission on any tickets you sell on the performer's behalf. The second is far riskier. as it's both inherently more expensive and it means that you, as promoter, take on all the overhead and risk arising from poor ticket sales or bad weather. The upside is that there's a higher potential profit if you get it right. Gary the Hair didn't.
Click to expand...
Neeone tours without a proper promoter though. There's neeway the Beyonce gig will have happened on that basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top